"Private health insurance plans catering to Medicare recipients are making millions by taking money the government sends in advance — but isn't immediately needed — and using it to make investments, federal investigators say in a report obtained by The Associated Press."

Let’s assume the state attorneys general are able to get the courts to agree that the mandate to purchase insurance is unconstitutional. Does that automatically mean that the court will declare the entire Act unconstitutional? Not necessarily. After declaring a section of an Act unconstitutional, the courts determine whether the remainder of the Act remains valid. The guiding principle is this according to a report on statutory interpretation from the Congressional Research Service quoting a ruling in Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. Brock, 480 U.S. 678, 684 (1987) (quoting Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 108 (1976)). “Unless it is evident that the Legislature would not have enacted those provisions which are within its power, independently of that which is not, the invalid part may be dropped if what is left is fully operative as a law.”

In other words, if the individual mandate to purchase health insurance is declared unconstitutional, then the issue will become whether Congress would have enacted the rest of the ACT if there were no individual mandate. We can be fairly certain that four members of the Supreme Court (Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts) will rule that the entire Act is unconjavascript:void(0)stitutional if they can find any piece of the Act unconstitutional such as the individual mandate. The question then becomes how the remaining five members of the court will rule. It should be very interesting.

From the page: "The most surprising part of Judge Roger Vinson’s ruling was his argument that the individual mandate was not severable from the health care law as a whole and must therefor bring down the entire Affordable Care Act. “In sum, notwithstanding the fact that many of the provisions in the Act can stand independently without the individual mandate (as a technical and practical matter), it is reasonably ‘evident,' as I have discussed above, that the individual mandate was an essential and indispensable part of the health reform efforts, and that Congress did not believe other parts of the Act could (or it would want them to) survive independently,” Vinson writes.

But a closer read of his analysis reveals something peculiar. In fact, as Vinson himself admits in Footnote 27 (on pg. 65), he arrived at this conclusion by "borrow[ing] heavily from one of the amicus briefs filed in the case for it quite cogently and effectively sets forth the applicable standard and governing analysis of severability (doc. 123)." That brief was filed by the Family Research Council, which has been branded as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). "

[...]

"Vinson's conclusion is peculiar because Congress usually defers to Congress on questions of severability. In fact, even Judge Henry Hudson - the Virginia Judge who also found the individual mandate to be unconstitutional - left the whole of the law intact noting, "It would be virtually impossible within the present record to determine whether Congress would have passed this bill, encompassing a wide variety of topics related and unrelated to health care, without Section 1501. Therefore, this Court will hew closely to the time-honored rule to sever with circumspection, severing any "problematic portions while leaving the remainder intact.""

As Chief Justice John Roberts noted in Free Enterprise Fund et al. v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, Because [t]he unconstitutionality of a part of an Act does not necessarily defeat or affect the validity of its remaining provisions," Champlin Refining Co. v. Corporation Comm of Okla. , 286 U. S. 210, 234 (1932) , the "normal rule" is "that partial, rather than facial, invalidation is the required course.""

Sunday, January 30, 2011

Currently, the federal government denies taxpayer monies to be used to pay for abortions, except in cases when pregnancies result from rape or incest or when the pregnancy endangers the woman's life.

However, if the 173 mainly Republican co-sponsors of the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act" have their way, that would all change. Instead of keeping the 30-year-old definition of rape in federal law, the bill would modify it to "forcible rape," thereby severely limiting the health care choices of millions of American women and their families.

In other words, rape would not be rape unless violence were involved; however, the term "forcible rape" was left undefined, leading some to speculate its meaning since it is also not defined in the federal criminal code or in some state laws.

"This would rule out federal assistance for abortions in many rape cases, including instances of statutory rape, many of which are non-forcible," Nick Baumann of Mother Jones wrote recently.

He continued, "For example: If a 13-year-old girl is impregnated by a 24-year-old adult, she would no longer qualify to have Medicaid pay for an abortion."

If the bill becomes law, parents of minors would also be banned from paying for pregnancy termination for their daughters with tax-exempt health savings accounts. Also, the cost of the private health insurance that covered the treatment would not be able to be deducted as a medical expense for tax purposes.

The bill introduced by Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) was the second major piece of legislation filed by the Republicans after its attempt to repeal "The Affordable Care Act." Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) hailed Smith's bill as "one of our highest legislative priorities."

The White House and congressional Democrats are vowing to aggressively fight back against any efforts to dismantle their signature healthcare reform law despite a State of the Union promise to work with Republicans on improvements.

Thursday, January 27, 2011

"The day after the Congressional Budget Office released its new estimate of a $1.5 trillion budget deficit for this fiscal year, CBO chief Douglas Elmendorf told the Senate Budget Committee that health care is the biggest driver of the budget problem."

In the United States, instead of fueling the resistance, social media is like a hypnotic drug.

A young Arab in Tunisia gets slapped around – the story goes – by a police officer.

He lights himself on fire.

And the whole Arab world is engaged.

Here in the United States, we get slapped around daily by the corporate elite.

And we take it sitting down in front of our computers.

Case in point.

Ronald Flanagan is a Vietnam Vet in Thornton, Colorado.

Ronald and his wife Frances have health insurance from Ceridian Cobra Services.

Their month premium – $328.69.

Frances went on line to pay their monthly premium.

By accident, she types in $328.67.

Two cents short.

Guess what our pals at Ceridian did?

Exactly.

Dropped the policy.

It came at a bad time for the Flanagans.

And a good time for Ceridian.

Ron has been fighting multiple myeloma – a cancer of the bone marrow – since September 2008.

“The nurses were just getting ready to do the biopsy when my wife popped into the office and told them, ‘Stop. We don’t have any insurance,’” Ron told ABC News 7 in Denver.

“And that’s when they let me know that we no longer had insurance on account of the two cents, and they canceled us,” Frances said. “Since then, I’ve been depressed. I haven’t been able to hardly do anything. As you can see, we still have our Christmas decorations up. So it’s been hard on me.”

Because of the two-cent mistake, Ceridian Cobra Services will not pay for the procedure.

We know that Ron is not alone.

We know that 45,000 Americans die every year due to lack of health insurance.

We know a person in our community in West Virginia who was diagnosed recently with a life threatening illness.

No sooner did the Republicans revive their crusade against Democratic health care reform than the law's biggest boogeyman made a comeback as well. With the Senate unlikely to take up the repeal bill that passed the House last week any time soon, the GOP has started going after individual parts of the legislation. Among the first targets is a little-known provision creating an independent Medicare panel whose purpose, Republican critics insist, is to ration care and could speed patients to an early death—in other words, the 2011 incarnation of Sarah Palin's "death panels."

Under federal health reform, the Medicare Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) will be a new, White House-appointed commission with the authority to change what Medicare pays for and how it pays for it—all without direct congressional approval. Many of health reform's biggest supporters have celebrated IPAB, which starts in 2015, as central to the entire law's ability to rein in ballooning Medicare spending. "It's absolutely critical. It's the centerpiece of the bill—the major way that you begin to control costs," Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) tells Mother Jones. But Republicans say the board embodies the most pernicious and outrageous faults of "Obamacare," delegating authority to unelected bureaucrats who could deny care to patients at their most critical moments

The anti-women, anti-choicers will use any trick - go to any extreme to try and harm the people and institutions attempting to help women with safe reproductive choices and care. AlterNet reports:

In what is perhaps one of the most craven actions of a deeply craven movement, anti-choice scam artists apparently affiliated with Live Action Films and Lila Rose of undercover 'gotcha film-fame' appear to have attempted an 'ACORN-like' hoax on Planned Parenthood Federation of America by sending people into Planned Parenthood health centers in six states posing as sex traffickers seeking health care for young girls who were 'part' of their supposed sex trafficking rings.

In response, Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards sent a letter to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder describing the visits and asking for an investigation.

AP reports that Rose, Live Action's founder and president, declined to confirm or deny that the clinic visits were part of a Live Action operation, but did indicate in a telephone interview with AP that an undercover videotape project of some sort was in the works. In December, Crary writes, Live Action announced that it was preparing to launch several major new investigations during 2011 and said it had received a $125,000 gift to finance the operations. It did not identify the source of that gift.

A gift of $125,000 to try and bring down Planned Parenthood. Disgusting.

The goal, according to Rose, is to "unnerve Planned Parenthood employees and eventually put them out of business."

"We will work to de-fund them in every state wherever it is possible, to de-license them and to expose them," she told the conservative Value Voters Summit in October.

"The other part of it, too, is to create controversy within the organization, keep them on their toes," she said. "We need to help them feel that fear."

Planned Parenthood helps hundreds of thousands of women get economical reproductive health care every year. Physical exams, birth control advice and prescriptions and offered at low cost. Any yeah, they do a few safe, legal abortions, too. Another healthcare need many women have.

Shutting down safe abortion options for women will not stop abortion. Ask any of us who lost friends to illegal abortions before Roe v. Wade.

If the Democrats' legislation fulfilled its goal of covering almost every American and also managed to pay for itself, it was suddenly much harder to oppose. So last week, as the Republicans sought to make their case that the health-care bill should be repealed, a lot of their arguments were aimed at undercutting the numbers coming out of the CBO.

The agency's product is nothing more than "budget gimmicks, deceptive accounting, and implausible assumptions used to create the false impression of fiscal discipline," conservative wonks Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Joseph Antos and James C. Capretta wrote in the Wall Street Journal. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) says the CBO's numbers are based on "smoke and mirrors." Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.), angry that the CBO thinks tax cuts reduce tax revenue - no doubt the agency has also been known to say that the sun rises in the east - has called for the CBO to be abolished.

The sad reality is that it's not hard to discredit budget estimates in 30-second sound bites: You just say whatever you want and trust that your opponent doesn't have anywhere near enough time to explain the issue. Take Republican criticisms that the "doc fix" isn't included in the CBO's scores, and that if it were, the health-care bill would increase the deficit. It's absurd. In 1997, congressional Republicans capped the rate at which Medicare could increase payments to physicians. But their cap was too low. Now they want Democrats to fix it for them and pile the costs onto the bill. It's a little like saying that the cost of the war in Iraq should be added to health-care reform.

But you'll notice it took a moment to explain that. It's easier to just say that the score is full of "smoke and mirrors" and then make some authoritative-sounding point about Medicare payments. Who's got the time to check it out?

You can play whack-a-mole with this stuff all day. But beneath it is something more insidious: an effort to discredit the last truly neutral, truly respected scorekeeper in Washington. The facts don't support the particular case the Republicans want to make, so they're trying to take down the people who supply the facts. But once that's done, it can't easily be undone. And the true loser will be the very thing Republicans claim to care most about: the deficit.

If getting the CBO's seal of approval ceases to matter, then political parties will cease to try. That's when the "smoke and mirrors" will really begin: when bills just have to sound good rather than pencil out. When there are no skeptical budget experts sending legislation back to the authors with a note that says "Sorry, not there yet." When policy debates are decided by who can yell the loudest rather than who can write the best bill.

The bargain that both parties have struck with the CBO is that they'll accept the short-term setbacks the agency imposes on them because, in the long run, it's better for the system to have someone keeping score. Right now, Republicans are breaking that bargain. They're not merely saying that the CBO's guess is bad, or that the CBO is right but the bill is bad for other reasons, but that the CBO's whole system is, in the words of Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), "Garbage in, garbage out." Civil? Maybe. Wise? Definitely not.

Tuesday, January 25, 2011

"More than half of those surveyed -- 62 percent -- said they did not approve of lawmakers cutting off funds needed to implement changes, which range from new rules for health insurance companies to tax credits for small businesses and state grants."

"In a letter delivered to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor Sunday, Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Robert Menendez (D-NJ) demand an answer to a question now at the center of the Republican party's top legislative priority: Will repealing the health care law force seniors to reimburse the government for the $250 check they received in 2010 to help them pay for prescription drugs?

'We are particularly concerned that repeal would reverse the course of making prescription drugs more affordable for seniors,' Schumer and Menendez write. 'The [repeal] legislation approved by the House could require seniors to repay the government.'

One of the major goals of the Affordable Care Act is to close the Medicare prescription drug coverage gap, better known to most as the 'donut hole.' The law will fill that hole over a decade, and in 2010, that meant many seniors received a $250 rebate check."

"In July of 1798, Congress passed – and President John Adams signed - “An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen.” The law authorized the creation of a government operated marine hospital service and mandated that privately employed sailors be required to purchase health care insurance.

Keep in mind that the 5th Congress did not really need to struggle over the intentions of the drafters of the Constitutions in creating this Act as many of its members were the drafters of the Constitution.

And when the Bill came to the desk of President John Adams for signature, I think it’s safe to assume that the man in that chair had a pretty good grasp on what the framers had in mind."

One of the criticisms of the health care reform bill enacted last year is that it expanded coverage without doing enough to control rising health care costs. Surgeon and journalist Atul Gawande says there are hopeful signs that costs can be contained — not by cutting back, but by providing more intensive services to chronically ill patients who incur huge costs with long stays in hospital rooms and intensive care units.

Thursday, January 20, 2011

"Although advocates of the pure single payer model will find some problems with this report on a reform proposal for Vermont, there is very good news in this analysis. The report emphatically confirms the superiority of the single payer model in ensuring that everyone is included while containing health care costs."

A provision by U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in the new federal health care law allows states to propose pilot programs in 2017. Now Vermont's congressional delegates – Sen. Patrick Leahy (D), Sanders, and Rep. Peter Welch (D) – have drafted a bill to authorize federal waivers three years sooner. Sanders will introduce the bill in the Senate for himself and Leahy, and Welch will introduce the bill in the House.

Sanders said, “At a time when 50 million Americans lack health insurance and when the cost of health care continues to soar, it is my strong hope that Vermont will lead the nation in a new direction through a Medicare-for-all single-payer approach. The goal is clear: quality, cost-effective health care for all Vermonters. This is essential not only for the wellbeing of all Vermonters but for job creation. We must do all we can to lower the crushing costs of health care that are now devastating Vermont businesses and their employees. I look forward to working with Sen. Leahy and Rep. Welch to get the appropriate waivers and flexibility for us to go forward toward a single-payer system.”

Welch said, “When Vermont innovates, the nation often follows our lead. Providing Vermont and other states with the flexibility to build upon health care reform will result in better care and greater access at a lower cost. Allowing us to become a laboratory for innovation and excellence will help Vermonters, while once again allowing us to lead the way.”

Leahy said, “While some in Washington are trying to turn the clock back on health reform, Vermont instead is moving forward. This state waiver bill will give Vermont and other states the choice to go above and beyond what the federal health care law does by devising their own reforms. Vermont has always been a leader in health care quality and access, and this bill will give our state the flexibility we want to offer Vermonters the best care and coverage while controlling costs.”

Shumlin said The Affordable Care Act “will bring Vermont critical money to make our health care system work better and to cover some of the uninsured. We want to do it better and faster than the federal law contemplates. We want to control costs and cover everyone. I am so pleased that our congressional delegation supports us in this effort, and I thank them for introducing this important legislation. This is just the beginning of this process, and there are other waivers we will need to get it done. If we work together, I am convinced we can persuade the federal government they should not stand in our way."

This press conference came one day before a report is to be delivered to the state Legislature by William Hsiao, the Harvard University economist, outlining health care options for Vermont that could require a federal waiver to be implemented.

The new national health law will provide insurance for 32 million more Americans and make other significant strides, but Leahy, Sanders and Welch said Congress and the Obama administration should let states make additional improvements.

Under their bill, states would be able to seek U.S. Health and Human Services Department approval to implement pilot health care systems beginning in 2014. To qualify, state plans would have to be at least as comprehensive and affordable as the federal model and cover at least as many people. States could not offer lower quality or less affordable coverage. A single-payer system like Vermont is considering or any other state initiative could not cause the federal government to incur more costs.

The waiver provision also requires HHS to create a coordinated process so states in a single application also could seek waivers already available under Medicare, Medicaid, and the children’s health insurance program.

A fact sheet on the new "State Leadership in Healthcare Act" is available here.

Wednesday, January 19, 2011

"Rather than waste time on debating how much reform insurance companies will permit - - if any - - -it is time to change the debate" - Kucinich Kicks off Health Care Debate with Renewed Call for Single-Payer

GOP claims 650,000 lost jobs from "ObamaCare," and cites the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office as the source. But the CBO never produced the number. What follows is a story of how statistics get used and abused in Washington.

Monday, January 17, 2011

"The Republican case is laid out in a document published on January 6th, under the authorship of the House GOP leadership and named, “Obamacare: A budget-busting, job-killing health care law.”

It’s an interesting document and well worth reading.

Indeed, the GOP arguments put forth in the study would be truly compelling were it not for the fact that the claims made are so astonishingly dishonest that it takes but a few hours of research to disprove and discredit virtually every substantial claim they make. If you question this, and I know many of you will, I have carefully provided links to each and every document and report the GOP has relied upon so that you may read these authorities for yourself."

Well worth the time to read the rest, where Mr. Ungar does the work for you.

According to a 2009 report from the Government Accountability Office, emergency department wait times continue to increase. The report says the average wait time to see a physician is more than double the recommended time in some cases.

Research from Press Ganey Associates, a group that works with health care organizations to improve clinical outcomes, finds that in 2009, patients admitted to hospitals waited on average six hours in emergency rooms. Nearly 400,000 patients waited 24 hours or more."

These types of stories - where a 2 year old winds up losing her limbs because the ER staff was too busy to take care of her - would diminish, not grow, if it was affordable for the average citizen to have a primary care physician they were able to build a relationship with.

Saturday, January 15, 2011

With the House preparing to vote this week on whether to repeal the health-care law, the chamber's new Republican majority is confronting a far more delicate task: forging its own path to expand medical coverage and curb costs.
The House's GOP leaders have made clear that they regard the repeal vote, scheduled to begin Tuesday, as the prelude to a two-prong strategy that is likely to last throughout the year, or longer.
They intend to take apart some of the sprawling law, which Democrats pushed through Congress last year, piece by piece before major aspects of it go into effect. At the same time, Republicans say, they will come up with their own plan to revise the health-care system, tailored along more conservative lines.
On the cusp of undertaking this work, the GOP has a cupboard of health-care ideas, most going back a decade or more. They include tax credits to help Americans afford insurance, limiting awards in medical malpractice lawsuits and unfettering consumers from rules that require them to buy state-regulated insurance policies. In broad strokes, the approach favors the health-care marketplace over government programs and rules.
House Republicans have termed their strategy "repeal and replace." But according to GOP House leaders, senior aides and conservative health policy specialists, Republicans have not distilled their ideas into a coherent plan.

Today brings a new Marist poll: "More registered voters want the law expanded than fully repealed, with the latter category amounting to less than a third. A total of 49 percent want to let it stand or change it so it does more, versus 43 percent who want to scale it back or get rid of it entirely. "

Which one of the following comes closest to your opinion about what Congress should do with the 2010 health care law:
Let it stand: 14
Change it so it does more: 35
Change it so it does less: 13
Repeal it completely: 30

Friday, January 14, 2011

"There's no 'job-killing' health-care law. There's only the health-care bill. And my problem with the modifier 'job-killing' isn't that it's uncivil, though perhaps it is. It's that it's untrue."

The GOP lifted the claim from this Congressional Budget Office report (pdf) -- but the report never says the bill will kill jobs. What it says, rather, is that the law will slightly reduce labor. It's not that employers will fire workers. It's that potential workers -- particularly older ones -- will retire somewhat earlier. "The expansion of Medicaid and the availability of subsidies through the exchanges will effectively increase beneficiaries’ financial resources. Those additional resources will encourage some people to work fewer hours or to withdraw from the labor market."

Guess what happens when a congressional town meeting audience isn't created by the Koch brothers or fueled by Fox News? There's a different kind of confrontation. Here's what happened at a meeting earlier this week at Ohio's Walsh University, with GOP Rep. Jim Renacci (OH).

Sunday, January 09, 2011

HARRY REID: One of the things that always troubles me is when we start talking about the debt, the first thing people do is run to Social Security. Social Security is a program that works. And it's going to be-- it's fully funded for the next forty years. Stop picking on Social Security. There're a lotta places--

DAVID GREGORY: Senator are you really saying --

HARRY REID: --where you can go to save money.

DAVID GREGORY:-- the arithmetic on Social Security works?

HARRY REID: I'm saying the arithmetic in Social Security works. I have no doubt it does.

DAVID GREGORY: It's not in crisis?

HARRY REID: The ne-- no, it's not in crisis. This is-- this is-- this is something that's perpetuated by people who don't like government. Social Security is fine. Are there things we can do to improve Social Security? Of course.

DAVID GREGORY: Means testing. Raising the --

DAVID GREGORY:--retirement age--

HARRY REID: --don't--

DAVID GREGORY: --do you--

HARRY REID: --I'm--

DAVID GREGORY: --agree with either of those?

HARRY REID: --I'm not going to go to with any of those backdoor methods- you know, to whack Social Security recipients. I'm not going to do that. We have a lot of things we can do with-- this debt. It's a problem. But one of the places where I'm not going to be part of picking on is Social Security.

While there are a wide array of opinions about health care reform and its impact, it is indisputable that our nation's children, especially low-income children and those with special health care needs, are better off today because of the new law. Repealing health reform would be devastating for these the millions children and families who already are or soon will benefit from this historic legislation. Why? Here are 10 key reasons:

1. If health reform were repealed, insurers would go back to denying coverage for children with pre-existing conditions. Parents of children with cancer, children born with a birth defect, children with asthma, special-needs kids, among others, would once again be unable to get coverage for their kids without the Affordable Care Act.

2. Insurers would return to the practice of placing lifetime limits on coverage so that if a child is fortunate enough to beat leukemia when they are 8 they would be uninsurable if they face another serious illness later in life.

3. Dependent children through age 26 would not be guaranteed access to coverage on their parents' policy, leaving scores of young adults, including recent high school and college grads, back among the ranks of the uninsured.

4. Insurers would not have to cover vision care services or eyeglasses for children even if it is impossible for a child to be successful in school if they can't see.

5. Insurers also would not be required to cover dental care, a horrible return to the days when lack of coverage could cause a child to die from an infected tooth that could have been addressed for about 100.

6. Repealing health reform would jeopardize the future of the successful Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), a federal-state program that offers low or no-cost coverage for families who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to buy their own coverage. CHIP and Medicaid have been crucial for families during this recession, ensuring that coverage for kids has remained stable despite the downturn in the economy.

7. Children with terminal illnesses would be returned to the days when they would not be able to get compassionate end-of-life hospice care unless they agreed to forgo looking for a cure for their illness.

8. Insurers would be allowed to resume the practice of charging co-payments for preventive health services, including essential well-baby and well-child visits, and vaccinations, creating financial disincentives for parents to get care for their children that keeps them healthy.

9. Children in foster care would no longer qualify for Medicaid beyond age 18.

10. New efforts to eliminate bureaucratic red tape and streamline enrollment processes for children who are already eligible but not enrolled in public health coverage would suffer if health reform was repealed. Nearly two-thirds of children who are uninsured actually qualify for coverage but face significant barriers that make it difficult for them to sign-up or re-enroll for coverage.

Saturday, January 08, 2011

"'It let's you make your own choice,' says Barbara Aplin, shouldering an oxygen tank on her way to the lunch line here at the senior Community Center in Green Bay, Wisconsin. She is speaking not of her meal options in 2011 but of so-called 'death panels,' the more colloquial name for the new Medicare rule now paying doctors to counsel this seventy-six-year-old ('and three-quarters!') and her fellow senior citizens about end-of-life care. If you listen to the new fear merchants from the right, the rule pushes seniors to opt out of medical treatment that might prolong their lives. But take an afternoon to listen to the actual grandmas, and you get a much different kind of scare. If her children don't listen to an end-of-life plan, Aplin says, 'I'll come back to haunt them.'"

What's getting Fox News's granny panties in a twist comes down to a new billing code — "voluntary" instead of "v66.7" — that the Obama administration added back in to Medicare regulation on New Year's Day after dropping it from the rather contentious Section 1233 of the health-care bill. But we couldn't find a single elderly American on Medicare who was against the provision.

"Death panels," now that they're going down in a slightly different way, don't strike those a bit closer to actual death as particularly deadly — and certainly not as anything new.

Here's something Fox News won't tell you: While the controversial billing code for an end-of-life conversation did not exist on Medicare forms until January 1, many doctors had the chat anyway — uncompensated. One primary-care physician told us that others found a way to bill "for the disease, and then add a v66.7 'encounter for palliative care.' And then I bill by time and code them usually a 99215, as it is usually forty-plus minutes."

With the new health-care regulation, she says she'll simply bill for "voluntary advance care planning." A different check box, as it were.

Thursday, January 06, 2011

A Little Good News: "As Peter Shumlin was officially sworn in as governor of Vermont, there was and is great hope that at least in one state we may see passage and implementation of a truly universal, single-payer healthcare system."

For transplant patients in Arizona, the warnings about death panels and health care rationing have come true, but they have nothing to do with health care reform. Instead, a Republican Governor and her allies are standing in the way of patient care, declining requests to reinstate funding for a critical, life-saving program.
Facing state budget problems, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer slashed funding for the state's Medicaid program that covered organ transplants. As a result some patients that were covered by the state and waiting for a transplant were cut from the program effective October 1st, leading to what some doctors are calling "death by budget cuts."

From Think Progress we learn some more about what repealing the Affordable Care Act would cost us:

– 32 million Americans will lose coverage compared to current law: “Under H.R. 2, about 32 million fewer nonelderly people would have health insurance in 2019, leaving a total of about 54 million nonelderly people uninsured. The share of legal nonelderly residents with insurance coverage in 2019 would be about 83 percent, compared with a projected share of 94 percent under current law (and 83 percent currently).” (p. 8-9)

– Increases deficit by $230 billion over 10 years: “Consequently, over the 2012–2021 period, the effect of H.R. 2 on federal deficits as a result of changes in direct spending and revenues is likely to be an increase in the vicinity of $230 billion, plus or minus the effects of technical and economic changes to CBO’s and JCT’s projections for that period.” (p. 5)

– Huge deficit increases over next decade: “Correspondingly, CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 2 would increase federal deficits in the decade after 2019 by an amount that is in a broad range around one-half percent of GDP, plus or minus the effects of technical and economic changes that CBO and JCT will include in the forthcoming estimate. For the decade beginning after 2021, the effect of H.R. 2 on federal deficits as a share of the economy would probably be somewhat larger.” (p. 7)

– Individuals would pay more for health insurance: “Although premiums in the individual market would be lower, on average, under H.R. 2 than under current law, many people would end up paying more for health insurance— because under current law, the majority of enrollees purchasing coverage in that market would receive subsidies via the insurance exchanges, and H.R. 2 would eliminate those subsidies.” (p. 9-10)

– Average health care benefits would be worse: “In particular, if H.R. 2 was enacted… the average insurance policy in this market would cover a smaller share of enrollees’ costs for health care and a slightly narrower range of benefits.” (p.9)

– Premiums for employer-sponsored insurance would increase: “Premiums for employment-based coverage obtained through large employers would be slightly higher under H.R. 2 than under current law, reflecting the net impact of many relatively small changes.” (p. 10)

"On Wednesday, the first day of the 112th Congress, Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) introduced a measure to establish a robust public health insurance option as a supplement the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

The California congresswoman argued the measure would lower insurance costs and address deficit concerns, pointing to a Congressional Budget Office report saying it would cut the deficit by $68 billion."

While the provision -- controversial in Congress but popular among the public -- is extremely unlikely to gain any traction in the Republican-controlled House, it serves to illustrate flaws in GOP's budget-related arguments regarding repeal of the health care law.
Republicans have argued that the health reform law would explode the deficit, but the CBO has said it would do the opposite. The nonpartisan scorekeeper has also said repealing the measure would add $143 billion to the deficit.

Wednesday, January 05, 2011

WASSERMAN-SCHULTZ: The Republicans will take away a 50 percent cut in brand name drugs that seniors got…it will mean that children and in a few years everyone will be dropped or be denied coverage for the pre-existing condition that they might have. It will mean that young adults will no longer be able to stay on their parents’ insurance until they’re 26. …. What we’re going to do is put insurance companies and profit-driven decision making back in the driver’s seat, instead of decision making between doctors and their patients.
PRICE: That’s the kind of policy that was rejected on November 2nd.
WASSSERMAN-SCHULTZ: Really? Really? You think that people want insurance companies, Tom. You think that Americans want insurance companies to make decisions about whether or not they get coverage for a pre-existing condition? That is absolutely not what November 2nd was about.

"These so-called “mandatory” or “entitlement” programs are permanent and have permanent funding authority. Furthermore, the Department of Health and Human Services has the ability to fund related provisions without seeking additional appropriations from Congress."

Florida Independent: "Think Progress has discovered that recent television commercials featuring Florida resident and former Gov. Mike Huckabee rallying viewers to sign a repeal petition against Obama’s health care reform measures are part of a campaign managed by 949 Media Group, a firm run by a notorious scam artist known for bilking struggling homeowners seeking to renegotiate their mortgages.

According to a representative from Restore America’s Voice, a PAC headed by a friend of Huckabee’s, Derek Oberholtzer has been the man behind the group’s campaign since it formed in October."

"With the 112th Congress set to convene on Wednesday, the new Republican House majority has come out swinging, threatening to un-do key Obama administration victories -- namely healthcare reform -- as soon as possible."

The Washington Monthly: "The more important element is that the conventional wisdom, driven in large part by Republican talking points, is deeply flawed. We've been told repeatedly that Americans just don't like the Affordable Care Act because they consider it excessive government overreach and some kind of liberal boondoggle.

But for months we've seen results like those from the CNN poll -- opponents of the health care law don't all agree with the conservative Republican line. On the contrary, only 37% of the country actually endorses the right's line and sees the Affordable Care Act as being 'too liberal.'

So, when you see the top-line results and see that 54% oppose the law, this is not to say that 54% have bought into the right-wing demagoguery and think Republican criticisms have merit. On the contrary, one could look at the same results and say that a 56% majority either support the law or want it to be even more ambitious in a liberal direction.

When Republicans try to gut the Affordable Care Act next year, insisting that the country is with them, it's worth remembering a pesky detail: they're wrong."